Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 255 posts

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#211

Post by sellmesoap »

neobrain wrote: post #30
mdp2021 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely concour about the need of a headphone jack - I do not buy anything without it. So, > to fit other features in what exactly, one would ask. If there are tradeoffs, if would be nice if the customers can decide what to have, in a modular product.

> If there are tradeoffs, if would be nice if the customers can decide what to have, in a modular product. A "modular product" has tradeoffs in and of itself (such as size, price, water resistance, …), which presumably would not fly for a majority of customers.

Yes, the water resistance is what keeps my phone from dying if I go for a hike in the rain or a small splashy boat ride, replacing the water damaged motherboard isn't as sustainable as buying a used flagship phone from an earlier time.

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#212

Post by mikae1 »

grapheneos wrote: post #182
mikae1 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aim to keep it 7-10 years Security updates will end 01 Sep 2028. https://endoflife.date/fairphone

Many important security updates will end much earlier. The table is based on how long Fairphone will provide incomplete security updates, not how long the device will truly receive security support. Fairphone 5 and earlier have end-of-life Linux kernel branches without security support. Fairphone's more recent devices are headed to the same situation. In practice, the same thing happens with other components beyond t…

Ouch, that sucks.

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#214

Post by warrantisall »

grapheneos wrote: post #182
mikae1 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aim to keep it 7-10 years Security updates will end 01 Sep 2028. https://endoflife.date/fairphone

Many important security updates will end much earlier. The table is based on how long Fairphone will provide incomplete security updates, not how long the device will truly receive security support. Fairphone 5 and earlier have end-of-life Linux kernel branches without security support. Fairphone's more recent devices are headed to the same situation. In practice, the same thing happens with other components beyond t…

[flagged]

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#215

Post by gib444 »

warrantisall wrote: post #214
grapheneos wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many important security updates will end much earlier. The table is based on how long Fairphone will provide incomplete security updates, not how long the device will truly receive security support. Fairphone 5 and earlier have end-of-life Linux kernel branches without security support. Fairphone's more recent devices are headed to the same situation. In practice, the same thing happens with other components beyond t…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#216

Post by warrantisall »

grapheneos wrote: post #197
jampekka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you have to compromise on HW openness and ethics vs paranoia.

Fairphones are closed source hardware with closed source firmware and closed source userspace drivers. Fairphones are less open than Pixels, not more open. It isn't truly known how a Fairphone compares to an iPhone or Pixel when it comes to environmental impact or fairness to workers. Fairphones are designed and built by T2Mobile since the Fairphone 4. T2Mobile barely has any public information available about it. Th…

[flagged]

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#217

Post by fsflover »

dzikimarian wrote: post #164
fsflover wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GDPR: "legimate interest" It doesn't allow spying though. It allows, e.g., to save your session if you intentionally logged in.

That's different setting. Typical "legitimate interest" section is about sharing data with 40 "trusted partners".

This is illegal.

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#218

Post by fsflover »

OroPla wrote: post #156
fsflover wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your first link, I had found myself, but it doesn't say a lot. Your second link 404s. https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-with-conve... Looks like it's still in beta: > Beta Edition PinePhones are aimed solely at early adopters. More specifically, only intend for these units to find their way into the hands of users with extensive Linux experience. Also, if you include taxes it's not sub $200. My curren…

> Also, if you include taxes it's not sub $200.

There is a $150 edition: https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-linux-smar...

It is forever in beta, because the company develops no software at all, only provides the hardware. All software is developed by the volunteers.

> Your first link, I had found myself, but it doesn't say a lot.

What does it not say? It also links to this: https://pine64.org/documentation/PinePhone/_full/

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#219

Post by moffkalast »

subscribed wrote: post #162
moffkalast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At the moment there is no other hardware manufacturer making similarly secure android phones. *NONE* There is no android hardware coming close. If there is, please name it. As far as I know it's only some unspecified, upcoming Motorola flagships. If you call the unwilling, pragmatic choice an "intense hypocrisy", it's pretty clear to me you're simply driven by emotions and tribalism, that the facts don't matter. Are…

> NONE

That's exactly my point. Imagine for a second that there's no Pixel. What would GOS do?

They could either ship nothing at all because suddenly nothing fits their made up standards, or they would have to lower them to fit reality. The standards are there only because the Pixel exists to fit them.

I think it's highly suspicious that they've set their demands up so that only one device fits the bill, if this wasn't FOSS people would be calling up anti-trust and asking how much Google paid them for regulatory capture.

Similarly, if there was a device that's more secure than the Pixel, would GOS support both, or rewise their rules so it only fits whatever they want? I guess we'll see once the Motorola lands.

But no, I'm saying using Google hardware is directly financially supporting the closed ecosystem of corporate control they're trying to fight against. And if we do go down speculation lane, I wouldn't find it impossible for Google to build in their own hardware level backdoors. Given that Snowden is still alive, I suppose it's unlikely, but the conflict of interest is clear as day here.

Re: How Fairphone built the Fairphone Gen 6+

#220

Post by grapheneos »

kenniskrag wrote: post #69
artisinal wrote: post #43

The recently released Fairphone 6+ runs on Android 16. I had to look that up on Wikipedia, their website doesn't even clearly state that. Android 16 is 14 months old at the moment. Android 17 was released to manufacturers 6 months ago and had a general release 2 months ago. So why does a brand new phone run an operating system from over a year ago? Does it really take over 6 months to update a phone to a new version…

Certification takes time and probably overlaped with the phone development. Fairephone is small compared to e.g. samsung and they describe themself more "stable" and long-term support than bleeding edge.

Fairphone 5 and earlier also have end-of-life Linux kernel branches without security support. Fairphone's more recent devices are headed to the same situation. In practice, the same thing happens with other components beyond the Linux kernel.

Fairphones have 1-2 months of delay for partial security backports to older releases from the beginning and much longer delays for full updates. Android 17 is required for full Android security updates. Only a subset of patches are backported to older versions and that subset is decreasing.

Android 17 is also required for the latest and greatest privacy/security protections which are not backported. There have been massive privacy and security improvements in each yearly Android release.

Post reply on HN